Page 3 of 3
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:32 am
by flip
It was just a guess from your previous remarks. As far as I can tell, the Lee's were the only ones to found a bank from the first families of Virginia. My bad.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:57 am
by callmeslick
flip wrote:It was just a guess from your previous remarks. As far as I can tell, the Lee's were the only ones to found a bank from the first families of Virginia. My bad.
bank was founded later in the tobacco years, and came into family via marriage much later. My people were tobacco planters until 1800 or so. Also, if you were up on the whole Virginia geneology, lots of cross marrying between most of the 20 or so foundation families. We have ties to the Lees, Custis', etc, etc. via early marriages. The Lee's, by the way, aren't even considered First Family, IIRC.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:04 pm
by Jeff250
snoopy wrote:As far as state issue of marriage licenses: I'd love for this to remain a state question. I'm in the libertarian camp of keeping as much governing power as local as possible.
To me though, recognizing people's rights isn't exercising power--it's giving power up. For instance, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states--just like the federal government--are restricted by the first amendment, but I don't see that as a federal government power grab. In fact, it's a step toward liberty.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:29 pm
by Ferno
Spidey wrote:Fine, I will give either one of you the final chance of explaining why my position on gay rights has anything to do with slicks…and why not all of the others as well?
...........................
That's not what I asked.
“You want to tell us why they don't deserve the same legal rights as the rest of us?”
Where did I say they didn’t?
If you give an honest answer, I'll engage you in what you call 'honest discourse' If not, oh well. I'm not going to let you throw out red herrings, I'm not going to let you delve into semantics. I'm getting tired of it, because whenever I ask any of you EnC regulars anything, you always change the subject, always play the "I'm right, you're wrong" game. It's gotten old a long time ago and I have to press like i'm wringing out a cloth.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:58 pm
by Will Robinson
Ferno wrote:Spidey wrote:Fine, I will give either one of you the final chance of explaining why my position on gay rights has anything to do with slicks…and why not all of the others as well?
...........................
That's not what I asked.
“You want to tell us why they don't deserve the same legal rights as the rest of us?”
Where did I say they didn’t?
If you give an honest answer, I'll engage you in what you call 'honest discourse' If not, oh well. I'm not going to let you throw out red herrings, I'm not going to let you delve into semantics. I'm getting tired of it, because whenever I ask any of you EnC regulars anything, you always change the subject, always play the "I'm right, you're wrong" game. It's gotten old a long time ago and I have to press like i'm wringing out a cloth.
Ferno, your question was a complete side track to the point Spidey was making so don't climb too high on that horse to complain about people changing subjects and such. He offered to address it separately...all you are doing is giving slick a smoke screen which he gratefully stepped behind.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:49 pm
by Ferno
he brought it into this discussion, he included it his list of 'left positions'. I asked the question.
so i'll ask the other question.
what. is. his. point.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:04 am
by vision
Ferno wrote:what. is. his. point.
I am also curious to know how a human right shouldn't also be a legal right, and why that would even be a left/right argument.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:45 am
by Spidey
I see no reason at all why a human right can’t also be a legal right, but keep in mind that they both stem from different sources, therefore you can never have 100% overlap.
Example:
You have the human right to eat food, but you don’t have the legal right to eat “my” food.
As far as why some gay rights issues fall on different sides of the political spectrum…well you can take as good a guess at that one as I can.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:24 am
by flip
ook with a personal spin around wealth vs. quality of life: My Great-Grandfather owned a car, but couldn't drive more than around 60 miles without ... Am I wealthier than my Great-Grandfather? Hell, no, the man owned a bank, two small factories and around 12,000 acres of land.
I guess this was what I remembered. I was curious when you said your great-grandfather was a banker. Not a bad wedding gift!
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:30 am
by snoopy
Jeff250 wrote:snoopy wrote:As far as state issue of marriage licenses: I'd love for this to remain a state question. I'm in the libertarian camp of keeping as much governing power as local as possible.
To me though, recognizing people's rights isn't exercising power--it's giving power up. For instance, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states--just like the federal government--are restricted by the first amendment, but I don't see that as a federal government power grab. In fact, it's a step toward liberty.
Interesting point... Maybe it becomes a question of whether civil marriage licenses are considered a right or a privilege. No one is arguing that people don't have the right to go to some clergy and call themselves married (well, okay, maybe some far right wing people are) - people are arguing over the civil recognition of the union, and the government extending privileges related to the union. Somehow I see rights as something that's inherently associated with individuals & a bit of a different matter.
At the end of the day, if it came down to a public vote, I think I'd actually vote in favor of gay marriage - because it doesn't threaten my understanding of marriage having distinct civil and religious aspects.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:51 am
by callmeslick
flip wrote:ook with a personal spin around wealth vs. quality of life: My Great-Grandfather owned a car, but couldn't drive more than around 60 miles without ... Am I wealthier than my Great-Grandfather? Hell, no, the man owned a bank, two small factories and around 12,000 acres of land.
I guess this was what I remembered. I was curious when you said your great-grandfather was a banker. Not a bad wedding gift!
indeed, and my grandfather became Bank President upon marriage.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:22 pm
by vision
Spidey wrote:As far as why some gay rights issues fall on different sides of the political spectrum…well you can take as good a guess at that one as I can.
Well, there is really no guessing involved, the party split comes from a small but influential minority of religious bigots and those who want their vote. Maybe that's what you meant?
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:26 pm
by Spidey
I said what I meant…and meant what I said.
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:31 pm
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:I said what I meant…and meant what I said.
Popeye wrote: I am what I am!
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:47 pm
by Spidey
callmeslick wrote:
Clowns to the left of me…Jokers to the right…
Re: And Now Its the Dems turn
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:29 pm
by Ferno
Spidey wrote:I see no reason at all why a human right can’t also be a legal right, but keep in mind that they both stem from different sources, therefore you can never have 100% overlap.
Example:
You have the human right to eat food, but you don’t have the legal right to eat “my” food.
As far as why some gay rights issues fall on different sides of the political spectrum…well you can take as good a guess at that one as I can.
took awhile, but thank you.
yeah I could never understand WHY some people viewed 'legal rights for gay people' actually needed debate. They're human beings after all, why segregate them?
We already went through that more than once. But no. It all has to do with an interested party going 'aha! here's an opportunity to try and control people that are different than us!'. because that's really all it is. Control.
History will bury them like it's buried others.